One of Kant’s main rules of morality is how one should go about borrowing money. Kant states that in order for it to be morally right to borrow money, one must have the intention of paying it back. If people were to not pay back their debts, there would be no more institutions lending money. Basically, those who are in need of money but don’t intend to pay it back expect others to follow the laws but want an exception to be made for them. Kant then goes on to describe a person in a desperate situation where they need money but don’t have the means to pay it back. This person is essentially choosing between performing an immoral act or dying of starvation.

                I don’t agree with Kant’s argument of borrowing only if we have the intent to repay the debt. He is saying that the desperate person should not seek the help he needs so as to not set an example for the rest of society. If this desperate person were to go around the laws and borrow money without the intention of paying it back, who’s to say the rest of society wouldn’t follow suit. Wouldn’t this be contradicting his first argument? He makes the claim that it is our duty to not commit suicide because it would cause the existence of nature to cease. But if this man doesn’t borrow the money he needs to sustain himself, wouldn’t he be essentially killing himself? I don’t think this person should disregard his needs in an attempt to keep the society in order. Lending companies often make exceptions and forgive loans, and yet they are still up and running today. What is to be said about someone who intends to pay back a debt but doesn’t have the means to do so? Is that considered wrong as well?